5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?

[bdunbar79]

I promise I'll post it, I just haven't slugged through the photos fast enough yet this evening. I'm on a timeline to get these done :-\

 

[wickidwombat]

I promise I'll post it, I just haven't slugged through the photos fast enough yet this evening. I'm on a timeline to get these done :-\

I have a backlog of processing to do too i still havent processed my photos from my trip to china! :-[

 

[briansquibb]

you should give topaz denoise a go
you can apply differenct degrees of noise reduction to shadow, highlight and colour channels as well as custom noise reduction to deal with pattern banding if you have to push 4 stops of shadow

they do a 30 day trial version, its worth playing with

I use Nik Dfine

 

[Bosman]

If you like going thru hard drives like water then the D800 is for you. 1000 raw images fills 750gig of hd space. No thanks. The buffer is terribly slow too, thats why they dont offer medium raw because med raw would slow it to a crawl.

 

[Bruce Photography]

If you like going thru hard drives like water then the D800 is for you. 1000 raw images fills 750gig of hd space. No thanks. The buffer is terribly slow too, thats why they dont offer medium raw because med raw would slow it to a crawl.

Actually that is not correct. If you shoot lossless compressed, which is the default, it averages about 45MB per shot doing typical landscape type shooting of high detail subjects. I went to one of my D800E directories and found 270 NEF file that averaged 45MB each for a total of 11.5GB size according to windows. If you multiply the 270 by 3.7 you'll get about 1,000 files. Taking that number a 1,000 NEF lossless compressed files gives you 42.59 GB. You are off by more than an order of mangnitude.

On an average my 5D3 takes about 28-30 MB in size. Assuming again 1,000 files, the 5D3 takes about 28 to 30 GB for 1000 files. The net difference between the 5D3 and the Nikon D800E is about 12-15 GB for every 1,000 raw files or about the same percentage that 36 mega-pixels is larger than 22 mega-pixels.

 

[Ivar]

This assumes the same type of photography, but the cameras may well and are differently used.
Poor MF digital shooters. Btw. exactly the same could have been said also to the 5D2 users what is said today to D800 users, so there seem to be not much brand logic.

P.S. memories are priceless but memory is cheap (hint: choose what is worth it).

P.P.S memory sizes still increase and the storage gets cheaper faster than cameras are developed.

If you like going thru hard drives like water then the D800 is for you. 1000 raw images fills 750gig of hd space. No thanks. The buffer is terribly slow too, thats why they dont offer medium raw because med raw would slow it to a crawl.

 

[bdunbar79]

I think Bosman is referring to the rate of return. Storage size goes up drastically (22mp vs 36mp) with highly diminishing returns in IQ. So why do it?

 

[Ivar]

I think Bosman is referring to the rate of return. Storage size goes up drastically (22mp vs 36mp) with highly diminishing returns in IQ. So why do it?

May I suggest that with more MP more thinking takes place before the shutter is pressed?
That is certainly true with MF digital.

 

[RLPhoto]

This thread is going on 30 pages. Seriously? :|

 

[bdunbar79]

I think Bosman is referring to the rate of return. Storage size goes up drastically (22mp vs 36mp) with highly diminishing returns in IQ. So why do it?

May I suggest that with more MP more thinking takes place before the shutter is pressed?
That is certainly true with MF digital.

You're inferring then, that with less mp, less thinking is going on. I beg to differ as I have a 16mp 1D Mark IV and I can tell you I think no less than if I had a 36mp camera. I put great thought into my photography, regardless of camera. Yes I also have an EOS-3, which hurts my brain sometimes ;D

 

[briansquibb]

I think Bosman is referring to the rate of return. Storage size goes up drastically (22mp vs 36mp) with highly diminishing returns in IQ. So why do it?

May I suggest that with more MP more thinking takes place before the shutter is pressed?
That is certainly true with MF digital.

You're inferring then, that with less mp, less thinking is going on. I beg to differ as I have a 16mp 1D Mark IV and I can tell you I think no less than if I had a 36mp camera. I put great thought into my photography, regardless of camera. Yes I also have an EOS-3, which hurts my brain sometimes ;D

Interesting - ff fans say with big mps we can crop out the picture and also we would have to think harder before taking the picture. Sounds like there is a gap in the thinking there

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I think Bosman is referring to the rate of return. Storage size goes up drastically (22mp vs 36mp) with highly diminishing returns in IQ. So why do it?

May I suggest that with more MP more thinking takes place before the shutter is pressed?
That is certainly true with MF digital.

See, if you shoot lets say...weddings, there are moment where thinking is aplied, and crafted, and applied again, all while trying to control chaos around you. But, there are other points, at receptions and during the ceremony where you as a tog have to be in the moment, and you know what, at that point instinct and experience take over. That's where you shoot in 3 shoot bursts to make sure you get the perfect expression ...and thats also where your filling up your cards. Also, if you take a photo-journalistic approach, and those who do that tend to hand over 600-1000 EDITED images to the client, much of the time from a primary and secondary shooter. How many overall shots do you do to get that kind of return? Generally it will be in the vicinity of 1500-3000 images!!!! a high mp camera just isn't suited to that kind of work unless you can tone the files down a bit. and on the d800, they don't have a sRAW or mRAW option, its RAW or crop and sorry, I'd rather use sRAW for filler shots than crop mode. This kind of issue though is only gonna be important for shooter who who shoot a lot, like wedding photographers. If your a studio/commercial tog, more of your shooting will be spent setting up the shoot than actually shooting ---its an apples to tomatoes comparison.

 

[bdunbar79]

I think Bosman is referring to the rate of return. Storage size goes up drastically (22mp vs 36mp) with highly diminishing returns in IQ. So why do it?

May I suggest that with more MP more thinking takes place before the shutter is pressed?
That is certainly true with MF digital.

You're inferring then, that with less mp, less thinking is going on. I beg to differ as I have a 16mp 1D Mark IV and I can tell you I think no less than if I had a 36mp camera. I put great thought into my photography, regardless of camera. Yes I also have an EOS-3, which hurts my brain sometimes ;D

Interesting - ff fans say with big mps we can crop out the picture and also we would have to think harder before taking the picture. Sounds like there is a gap in the thinking there

Brian, there was no thinking going on by that person's comments. None.

 

[Razor2012]

People just don't get that these are 2 very different cameras offering 2 different shooting styles.

 

[rpt]

This thread is going on 30 pages. Seriously? :|

+1,000,000

 

[fullframe]

I agreed with you. 5dm3 is better than d800 bcoz the low light perfomance is great, also a 22MP sensor is enough to do all the work

 

[D_Rochat]

 

[Razor2012]

Exactly.

 

[Chewy734]

is that Abe Lincoln beating a horse? ???

 

[Bosman]

If you like going thru hard drives like water then the D800 is for you. 1000 raw images fills 750gig of hd space. No thanks. The buffer is terribly slow too, thats why they dont offer medium raw because med raw would slow it to a crawl.

Actually that is not correct. If you shoot lossless compressed, which is the default, it averages about 45MB per shot doing typical landscape type shooting of high detail subjects. I went to one of my D800E directories and found 270 NEF file that averaged 45MB each for a total of 11.5GB size according to windows. If you multiply the 270 by 3.7 you'll get about 1,000 files. Taking that number a 1,000 NEF lossless compressed files gives you 42.59 GB. You are off by more than an order of mangnitude.

On an average my 5D3 takes about 28-30 MB in size. Assuming again 1,000 files, the 5D3 takes about 28 to 30 GB for 1000 files. The net difference between the 5D3 and the Nikon D800E is about 12-15 GB for every 1,000 raw files or about the same percentage that 36 mega-pixels is larger than 22 mega-pixels.

I wasn't talking about compressed lossless was i?

Also given how the buffer drops dramatically in med raw settings its enough to tell you thats why they eliminated the option from the already slow buffer on the d800. I would probably want to throw it at the ground trying to shoot a wedding. Much like that time a guy convinced me the 1d was a superior camera to a 5d which is true but given that the buffer was so painful i missed shots at weddings where emotion took place. You dont want to miss those moments so you do shoot a burst. At least after i sold it and got the 5d in the end it was so much faster than the 1d but not wowsers fast just enough for what i did.
I don't need to be patronized over how i should think more to get shots, thats what landscape photographers do. I always compose my shots but during peak moments i don't want to concern myself with all of the elements. Those are the wedding photographers who miss the moments, the ones you don't hire to shoot your wedding.